I made a few edits to this question and one of its answers. Both were rejected as "too minor".

  • Here is the suggested edit to the question. The question originally had a string of 5-10 pointless comments talking about whether the auditor was an idiot or not. I flagged the question to have them all removed and they were. I then edited the question to remove the bit about the auditor since it didn't add to the question and was just there waiting to start another distracting discussion.

    Out of context, this edit is minor and should be rejected. However, I presume the reviewer didn't get to see the comments before they were cleaned out by the mods.

  • Here is the suggested edit to the answer. It just formats the code block properly.

    When the critical part of a post is code, is it appropriate to edit it just to format that code? I believe so.

I have spoken out before elsewhere on The Stacks against making trivial edits, so I'm not looking to challenge any editing standards--just justify these two edits.

In this situation, I believe the first edit is a special case and is appropriate; and the second edit, as it belongs to the category of "edits to format code", is non-trivial and also appropriate.

Do y'all agree?

3 Answers 3


I completely agree the edit are entirely valid and improve the question. I still would have rejected as too minor. However, I would have used the Custom reason and explained that while the edits definitely improve the formatting and readability of the question, and would normally be accepted, the Question is a year old and there's no need to drag it up just to fix formatting.

TL;DR - Totally valid edit, but too minor considering the age of the question/answer.

Side note: This is the exact reason I'm an advocate of the "Minor Edit" Suggestion Flag. So that if you're just fixing formatting, you can check that box; and if a mod agrees that it's a minor edit they can also check a similar box, and the question doesn't get dragged up to the front page, but does get the fix.

  • 2
    I'm certainly against flooding the front page with old material. However, I understand that the majority of people reading questions come through Google long after they've been answered. Therefore, a good edit should be made, regardless of the post's age, since lots of people will benefit from it. If the bump that big of a problem, perhaps one of the default reasons to reject an edit should be "post is too old". Otherwise, yes, that "minor edit" proposal would squarely address this issue. May 8, 2012 at 14:28

I would have rejected your edit of the question not because it was too minor but because it would have changed it far too much. After all, the question is very specifically asking in which file the information is stored in and you wanted to remove any reference to a file. You also wanted to completely remove the reason for wanting the information. Quite simply, after your edit the question would have been something entirely different to what the OP had asked.

OTOH, your edit of the answer should have been accepted.

  • I removed the reference to the auditor because it was distracting (as explained above). Perhaps I shouldn't have removed the mention of the file, but I don't think that doing that completely changed the meaning of the question, especially in light of the answers given (including one from the asker himself). May 8, 2012 at 14:13

I was the one who rejected both edits, and yes, I didn't saw the comments before they where removed.

I agree with Chris on this one: Valid edits, but since they don't correct any factual problem I consider them too minor to drag them back to the front. And yes, some clever way to allow minor edits without a bump up is definitely needed. There are many ways how this could be implemented without loosing accountability.

Anyway, I actually hate to reject edits because I don't think it's very fair to you when you made the effort to improve the site, but on the other hand, having to wade through old questions on the front page and searching for the reason why this was bumped up means also a lot of effort for every one who cares for this (mainly, our regular users). So, please don't take this personally, it's not meant that way at all.

  • No biggie. As a regular on DBA.SE, I've had trouble myself with editors bumping old posts to the front page so I completely understand. May 8, 2012 at 14:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .